So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

It's simple ! Anything that disrupts peace and dignity of life cannot be a part of religion. This only implies that people have used religion to inflict misery on others instead of using it to bring them together. Over decades we have been spectators to the misery and communal fights caused in its name...Does anything else need to be said ?

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

It's simple ! Anything that disrupts peace and dignity of life cannot be a part of religion. This only implies that people have used religion to inflict misery on others instead of using it to bring them together. Over decades we have been spectators to the misery and communal fights caused in its name...Does anything else need to be said ?

The fact is that people use religion to inflict misery, but only at times. At other times they use it to bring peace and healing to others.

People can't get away from religion. Because nobody know anything about the future or his own future, people seek religion of some sort. Even the people who are against religion make it into a religion of non-religion... all because of our human weakness regarding our lack of for-a-fact knowledge of anything in the future.

With all due respect -- and I say that because I know from your posts you do value intellectual honesty -- you have no basis to say there is no "need" for God or an Intelligent Designer.

Simply because we can speculate on numerous possible theories and hypotheses which could be used to explain processes we have yet to more accurately observe and measure, none of which would require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being.

Sentence fragment. "Simply because [what you said afterwards]," then what? I'm not getting on your case for a typo. I'll assume the 'then what' is what follows in your next sentence.

Quote

So, on the basis that explanations exist which do not require an omnipotent, omniscient super-being, they are by default *more likely* to be correct as they do not invoke infinitely more complex elements, namely, god(s).

This is incorrect, aside from the fact that it says virtually nothing. When I say it is "incorrect," I mean that it is actually you, here, who is introducing unnecessary assumptions. You are assuming that it is "more likely" correct that an omnipotent God is not the missing explanatory element, which itself is likely based upon another, unspoken -- and more fundamental -- assumption that there is no means of determining whether an omnipotent God is necessary or not. If there is a means to determine whether or not God must exist by necessity, then we would also have a means of making such a determination in the absence of any assumption.

And when I say that "it says virtually nothing," I'm speaking to the obvious fact that no explanation/theory includes that which is outside of its own scope. You're essentially saying something along the lines of, "A theory can be assumed to be more correct because of that which it can't account for." It might not seem to you like this is what you are saying, but in the absence of any knowledge about whether there is actually a means for accounting for what is beyond current explanation, then it is indeed what you are implying.

To have a comprehensive theory of what reality is all about, the theory we have about reality requires that it can account for itself.

Quote

Well, let's be honest, we don't need a 'comprehensive' theory of 'reality' to be able to accurately describe basic elements of what can be objectively tested, observed and measured, as long as we have the technological tools which can help to minimise on the erroneous frailties of our own perceptions.

The type of "description" you reference here is merely relative description. Aside from the fact that any data provided by such "technological tools" are always subject to the frailties of our own perceptions (i.e. it doesn't matter how good the tool is if the tool itself, and the gathered data, are also subject to the frailties of perception), we already have examples of where such "technological tools" provide us with empirical data that lends to contradictory explanation. A powerful telescope is a great example:

On one hand, a telescope can provide us with data that lends to the extrapolation of an expanding universe from a single point in space; on the other hand, the fact that we observe galaxies in similar stages of development equidistant to our relative locality (i.e. to our right, we see galaxies at age x and at distance y, but we also see this if we look left, up, down, etc.) seems to suggest that we are always at the center of the Universe. Empirical methods have no means of resolving empirical paradoxes, and it is only by deferring to abstract methods such as logic and mathematics that we can possibly resolve these paradoxes.

Quote

We can, and have, achieved a great deal in our short time of applying the scientific method, without needing to say we 'know everything'.

In a practical sense, of course. We needn't even consider cosmology to go about our daily life. But without knowing 'all that we can know,' we 1) can't assume God does or does not exist, and 2) can't assume that exploring the issue and possibly arriving at a conclusion won't yield practical value that is currently unknown to us.

Quote

Introducing gods into our hypotheses would be no different to introducing Harry Potter as an explanation for the origin of The Universe. Your philosophical gymnastics notwithstanding, I think we can safely proceed along the lines of ruling out our Universe having been created by a fictional character from a book, if you know what I mean.

First, I again remind you of the fundamental and crucial point that "philosophical gymnastics" are what allow the scientific method to work in the first place. Science is predicated upon empiricism which is a theory of knowledge acquisition. Empiricism defers to philosophy to say, "Okay, in order to explain 'objectively' in terms of empirical phenomena, we are going to control for the possible effects of observation by simply assuming that observation has no effects on physical phenomena." This is an entirely philosophical assumption, and it is empirically unfalsifiable. To empirically falsify this assumption would require that one collect empirical data of physical phenomena by means of observation in a universe totally void of observation (a contradiction). You must then ask yourself why you are willing to make what Hume calls "a complete departure from science" in order to explain it, but you are unwilling to make such a departure for anything else.

Second, Harry Potter by definition is a false analogy to an Intelligent Designer. Is is theoretically possible to empirically prove or falsify Harry Potter because Harry Potter falls within the scope of Empiricism. It is not theoretically possible to empirically prove or falsify an Intelligent Designer because an I.D. falls outside the scope of Empiricism by definition.

However: Your reply entirely misses the point about the requirement of a theory to explain theories in general.

Edit: The most intellectually dishonest point you make is even saying things like "philosophical gymnastics" to begin with. Absolutely all knowledge is predicated upon logic and Philosophy. Hearing you talk like this is like hearing BADdecker refer to the theories of science as "science fiction." A logical explanation, equal-to or greater in scope, trumps a scientific explanation 100% of the time, all the time, every time.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

If science explains everything so perfectly, why is there an increasing belief in paranormal things?

It takes time for people to lose their 'woo'....Trouble is, if we can explain away every single claim towards the 'paranormal', which we can,

I guess that's what your argument comes down to. I just think that if science was explaining all of these things like you say it can, then people would be losing their notions in the supernatural over time, not getting more into it as science seems to be failing to explain things to people instead.

If science explains everything so perfectly, why is there an increasing belief in paranormal things?

It takes time for people to lose their 'woo'.

Firstly, please don't ever cite how many people believe something to be true as a measure of it being true. You cannot prove anything by general consensus. You could say 100 billion people believe in something for which there is no objective measure and their assertion would be defeated by a single person who simply pointed out that fact.

Just because you employ positive reinforcement, confirmation bias and cherry-picking among a group of like-minded 'believers' does not make for evidence. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Nothing 'paranormal' has EVER been demonstrated that could survive critical analysis and you want to simply say, "Well, shucks, there's a lot of us who believe in it so we'll ignore the absolute lack of any data to support our claims" because that's sensible, right?

Secondly, people will often move from theism to agnosticism because they understand that religion is a man-made phenomenon, but they will still cite their own experiences of, "things wot u cud nt expln!!!!!1!1", leading them into maintaining a belief in 'the supernatural' allowing them to still hold on to the notion of 'dualism', something a lot of people believe they need to do because of their conditioning from religion.

Trouble is, if we can explain away every single claim towards the 'paranormal', which we can, and those who cite having 'knowledge of' the 'paranormal' are completely unable to ever demonstrate objective proof of such, then I think we're safe to say that our non-woo explanations are, as for 'god', infinitely more likely to be correct.

A few comments I'd like to make about this post:

1) "Woo" is certainly abundant. Woo exists most prominently when someone looks at some evidence or experiment and makes unwarranted assumptions about it, e.g. how Deepak Chopra might look at ideas of quantum non-locality and use it alone to make statements about all of us being 'one,' or something to that effect.

Woo does not exist where there is a valid or sound logical argument that either provides a basis for bypassing scientific explanation altogether, or for framing scientific explanation within a broader, valid philosophical context.

2) Agreed, ad populum proves nothing. Just make sure you recognize this also applies to the countless persons who believe Empiricism is the end-all to knowledge acquisition. There are both things which provably exist outside the scope of empirical explanation, and methods of knowledge acquisition which provably trump Empiricism in terms of general explanation (e.g. how Philosophy can explain and validate empirical exploration whereas Empiricism cannot, etc.).

To this end, scientific "woo" also exists, and usually takes the form of, "Look how far science has taken us technologically and in terms of our understanding of specific natural processes, therefore science is the best method of exploration."

3) Also keep in mind there is no empirical evidence that validates the scientific method. Science as a working method is validated entirely by Philosophy.

4) Automatically equating things like God or Intelligent Design to "paranormal" is a form of intellectual dishonesty (for, if such things exist, they are not paranormal but real). What we can do is equate "paranormal" with "unreal," thereby elucidating my point -- one who assumes that God or I.D. must be paranormal is intellectually dishonest in that he a priori dismisses these things as unreal without any rational basis to make such an analogy.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for subscribing to your God club?

School bag on the roof is nothing. It is your rejection of God that will throw you under the bus.

Nobody has to do anything to you. God gave you the strength, in the kind of being that He made you to be, that you can reject Him if you want.

God wants you to accept Him, because He is the thing that holds you alive. If you reject Him, you reject your life and your self. God doesn't want that for you. But He also wants you to make up your own mind. He hopes you make it up the right way, so that you can live. But you have the freedom to make your decision as you wish.

Because of all this, no good Christian will attempt to force you to believe in God. No good Christian ever attempts to force anyone to believe in God. Good Christians tell the message about God, they attempt to convince, they call, they invite. But they don't force.

At the time your rejection is strong enough that there is absolutely no chance for you to accept God under any circumstances, God will know it. What He will do is unclear. He probably will let you die, then, giving you the thing you asked for - death - so that your sinning will be less than it would have been had you remained alive, so that you will be punished less in Hell for rejecting God.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I don't want to speak for someone else, but I have a few questions and thoughts:

1) What kind of proof are you looking for?

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

2) Do you generally believe proof must be empirical proof?

3a) If so, what place do you think logical or mathematical proofs have in rational discourse?

3b) Also, if so, by what means could one falsify the belief, or prove to the contrary, that empirical proof is not the only kind that matters?

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I am not into taunting or playing around like a cat and mouse, or in your words like children on a school yard. The fact that you see it that way says more about you and then me, I believe.

I only brought up the fact that I have proof to answer the question. Why do I continue to believe? I believe because I have proof.

You act like I need to prove to you the existence of God to show why I believe in Him. I believe in Him and I have proof, that is why I continue to believe in Him (I believed with faith purely in the beginning). I don't need to prove His existence to you for me to believe in Him.

I was simply answering your question, not trying to be contrary. As the joint wrote below, and I already stated, I know my proof will not prove God to you.

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I don't want to speak for someone else, but I have a few questions and thoughts:

1) What kind of proof are you looking for?

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

2) Do you generally believe proof must be empirical proof?

3a) If so, what place do you think logical or mathematical proofs have in rational discourse?

3b) Also, if so, by what means could one falsify the belief, or prove to the contrary, that empirical proof is not the only kind that matters?

1)Objective evidence/proof as she made a claim that required objective evidence/proof. I asked why she thinks her religion of Christianity was true and Islam was false, which is what she implied by saying only the bible God should be worshipped. I think she got confused with the question and thought I just asked for proof of God, which I didn't.Claiming Islam is incorrect with just subjective proof is silly, because Islam claims their religion is correct with objective evidence. (They also believe subjectively as well of course.) No need to go into detail but it goes along the lines of the Quran says this that and the other and the bible says this so the Quran must be only correct one, and so forth. This is objective, you agree? And surely objective proof/evidence must always trump subjective proof/evidence.She failed to put any objective evidence/proof on the table, thus failed to answer my question.

I'm sure your going to tell me I've got it all wrong now. I know my limits, I'm not arguing with you, you'll blow me out of the water. LOL.

2)Believe it or not I regularly go back over your post history to read what you've written, even on threads I've never posted in. In fact, your in my top 5 of posters I like reading.I admit some of your stuff is too heavy for me and goes way over my head, but I do try.

Anyway I am paying attention to what you say, so yes there is logical proof as well.

Fun fact: For most atheists, religion is like, the gayest thing there is. The absolute fucking GAYEST. Seriously you guys.

Plenty of rational people are irritated by religion just as plenty of irrational people are irritated by homosexuality.

And yet, I would never call someone "gay" as a derogatory thing.

Theist ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones.

That's a fact.

#goodReasonsToDespiseReligion

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Jesus spent most of His time in the presence of what they called the worst of the worst back in the day. I'm not calling homosexuals the worst of the worst, just pointing out that Jesus never said to shun anyone, or to be mean to anyone. He said to love your neighbor as yourself. To do unto them as you would have done unto you.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I don't want to speak for someone else, but I have a few questions and thoughts:

1) What kind of proof are you looking for?

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

2) Do you generally believe proof must be empirical proof?

3a) If so, what place do you think logical or mathematical proofs have in rational discourse?

3b) Also, if so, by what means could one falsify the belief, or prove to the contrary, that empirical proof is not the only kind that matters?

1)Objective evidence/proof as she made a claim that required objective evidence/proof. I asked why she thinks her religion of Christianity was true and Islam was false, which is what she implied by saying only the bible God should be worshipped. I think she got confused with the question and thought I just asked for proof of God, which I didn't.Claiming Islam is incorrect with just subjective proof is silly, because Islam claims their religion is correct with objective evidence. (They also believe subjectively as well of course.) No need to go into detail but it goes along the lines of the Quran says this that and the other and the bible says this so the Quran must be only correct one, and so forth. This is objective, you agree? And surely objective proof/evidence must always trump subjective proof/evidence.She failed to put any objective evidence/proof on the table, thus failed to answer my question.

I'm sure your going to tell me I've got it all wrong now. I know my limits, I'm not arguing with you, you'll blow me out of the water. LOL.

You asked how I came to the conclusion, and I gave you my answer. I believed, and I got proof.

I don't need to prove it to you with objective evidence to answer your question of how I came to the conclusion I did. I answered your question. I don't need to prove His existence to you for me to believe in Him.

Fun fact: For most atheists, religion is like, the gayest thing there is. The absolute fucking GAYEST. Seriously you guys.

Plenty of rational people are irritated by religion just as plenty of irrational people are irritated by homosexuality.

And yet, I would never call someone "gay" as a derogatory thing.

Theist ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones.

That's a fact.

#goodReasonsToDespiseReligion

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Jesus spent most of His time in the presence of what they called the worst of the worst back in the day. I'm not calling homosexuals the worst of the worst, just pointing out that Jesus never said to shun anyone, or to be mean to anyone. He said to love your neighbor as yourself. To do unto them as you would have done unto you.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I don't want to speak for someone else, but I have a few questions and thoughts:

1) What kind of proof are you looking for?

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

2) Do you generally believe proof must be empirical proof?

3a) If so, what place do you think logical or mathematical proofs have in rational discourse?

3b) Also, if so, by what means could one falsify the belief, or prove to the contrary, that empirical proof is not the only kind that matters?

1)Objective evidence/proof as she made a claim that required objective evidence/proof. I asked why she thinks her religion of Christianity was true and Islam was false, which is what she implied by saying only the bible God should be worshipped. I think she got confused with the question and thought I just asked for proof of God, which I didn't.Claiming Islam is incorrect with just subjective proof is silly, because Islam claims their religion is correct with objective evidence. (They also believe subjectively as well of course.) No need to go into detail but it goes along the lines of the Quran says this that and the other and the bible says this so the Quran must be only correct one, and so forth. This is objective, you agree? And surely objective proof/evidence must always trump subjective proof/evidence.She failed to put any objective evidence/proof on the table, thus failed to answer my question.

I'm sure your going to tell me I've got it all wrong now. I know my limits, I'm not arguing with you, you'll blow me out of the water. LOL.

You asked how I came to the conclusion, and I gave you my answer. I believed, and I got proof.

I don't need to prove it to you with objective evidence to answer your question of how I came to the conclusion I did. I answered your question. I don't need to prove His existence to you for me to believe in Him.

Yes ^^. Scientific proof lacks in multitudes of ways. One can see this in the fact that science barely accepts some of the aspects of consciousness that are evident to many in ways other than science. People who accept such evidence as proof are just as correct as those who don't. Until science can recognize that there is way more fact than science accepts, science itself is flawed.

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Yes, and the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole that swallows Earth, but these two scenarios are extreme improbabilities. I understand you don't see the distinction between possibility and probability, but scientists tend to discount extreme improbabilities when forming analysis or offering guidance. Science regards all matters with doubt by default, and even much of Old science has been debunked by New Science. it is only the Strongly Evidenced ideas that break out of Doubt's gravity well and reach Living Theory outer space.

This is why science is cumulatively providing a more and more accurate description of the universe, and why technology has been evolving so rapidly since the dawn of modern Reason. Meanwhile religion keeps offering the same shitty old Bronze Age assumptions for 2,000 years straight.

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Yes, and the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole that swallows Earth, but these two scenarios are extreme improbabilities. I understand you don't see the distinction between possibility and probability, but scientists tend to discount extreme improbabilities when forming analysis or offering guidance. Science regards all matters with doubt by default, and even much of Old science has been debunked by New Science. it is only the Strongly Evidenced ideas that break out of Doubt's gravity well and reach Living Theory outer space.

This is why science is cumulatively providing a more and more accurate description of the universe, and why technology has been evolving so rapidly since the dawn of modern Reason. Meanwhile religion keeps offering the same shitty old Bronze Age assumptions for 2,000 years straight.

"Let's see. People were sooooo different back 2,000 years ago. They had 5 arms and 10 legs and 3 torsos and eyes and ears in abundance back then. But we have evolved into something more practical over the last 2,000 years, right?"

People are basically the same, now, as they were back 2,000 years ago. That's why religion fits us now as it did back then. That's also why he con artists of whatever religion are still trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the common people. The difference is that this time it is the religion of modern science.

In all those spactacular theories of modern science that suggest all kinds of grandios happenings in the universe and among people, from evolution to the Big Bang and beyond, all are just theories. There is so extremely little fact among them that they are basically science fiction. And because they are believed as truth among many, science has become religion more than it is science by far... at least among the common people.

The new high priests are the scientists who lie through their teeth about the truth of the theories. There is no truth to the theories. The only truth is what is factual.

It has nothing to do with them being theist. (people can hate homosexuality if they're atheist too)

Yes, and the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole that swallows Earth, but these two scenarios are extreme improbabilities. I understand you don't see the distinction between possibility and probability, but scientists tend to discount extreme improbabilities when forming analysis or offering guidance. Science regards all matters with doubt by default, and even much of Old science has been debunked by New Science. it is only the Strongly Evidenced ideas that break out of Doubt's gravity well and reach Living Theory outer space.

This is why science is cumulatively providing a more and more accurate description of the universe, and why technology has been evolving so rapidly since the dawn of modern Reason. Meanwhile religion keeps offering the same shitty old Bronze Age assumptions for 2,000 years straight.

You wrote, "Theist ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones."

I said it has nothing to do with them being theist. Just like the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people," "being Christian doesn't make one hate, people make people hate, and people hurt people." The angry and bigoted people in the world are not ALL religious.

You spent way too much time on that post. Probability doesn't matter. You act like all Christians hate people. That's the opposite message of Christianity. You tend to spend too much time in the all or nothing frame of mind, that you dismiss that SOME people are hateful and not religious. And as long as some people exist who hate and are not religious, then religion does not cause all the hatred in the world.

Your sentence should have read "ignorant hatred is the reason gay teenage americans are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight ones."

There's no need for the word theist. You're just being inaccurate to exclude people.

Can your compile us a list of all these false Gods please? I want to be sure to avoid them.Please answer in your own words and directly as possible. Thanks.

Anyone or anything that is not the true God of the bible /Jesus should not be worshiped or placed in higher respect than God/Jesus.

How have you come to that conclusion? Give me an example; let's say the Islamic God Allah. How have you concluded this one is false?

Because I believe Jesus Christ is the savior.

Yeah see you didn't really answer the question, you just gave us your opinion. Just because xyz is comforting, doesn't imply xyz is true.To be fair I knew you would never answer it because I asked an impossible question. Nobody can possible know if that particular God is false or not.Good reason why I steer clear of the whole mess.

No. I answered the question completely. You just want proof.

I'm sure atheists will love this answer, but I have proof. Those with hardened hearts will never see proof enough to believe in God though. Christians are not supposed to bother trying to explain or prove His existence to someone who will never believe. Atheists will say they will, but it will never happen. You'll say that's convenient.

Well, it's not, it would be easier to just lay it all out and have you believe. But it's not the way God set up the world. And my proof is my proof, and subjective, nothing you can't say was just a figment of my imagination and easily explainable. But I know it's true.

It's all rather "school yard" all this. I mean why make a big fanfare announcement claiming proof, then when asked to show it (which you wanted people to do anyway, or else why announce it?), reply "not telling".

What you gonna do next, throw my school bag on the roof for not subscribing to your God club?

I don't want to speak for someone else, but I have a few questions and thoughts:

1) What kind of proof are you looking for?

He mentioned his proof is subjective. If it's 110 degrees outside and I tell you that it's cold outside because I happen to feel cold, how can I prove this to you? A thermometer won't cut it except saying that 110 degree is cooler than, say, a paper fire. Do you allow any room for experiential proof? It would certainly be valid to say that my feeling and knowledge of being cold is experiential proof despite my inability to prove this to you or anyone else.

2) Do you generally believe proof must be empirical proof?

3a) If so, what place do you think logical or mathematical proofs have in rational discourse?

3b) Also, if so, by what means could one falsify the belief, or prove to the contrary, that empirical proof is not the only kind that matters?

1)Objective evidence/proof as she made a claim that required objective evidence/proof. I asked why she thinks her religion of Christianity was true and Islam was false, which is what she implied by saying only the bible God should be worshipped. I think she got confused with the question and thought I just asked for proof of God, which I didn't.Claiming Islam is incorrect with just subjective proof is silly, because Islam claims their religion is correct with objective evidence. (They also believe subjectively as well of course.) No need to go into detail but it goes along the lines of the Quran says this that and the other and the bible says this so the Quran must be only correct one, and so forth. This is objective, you agree? And surely objective proof/evidence must always trump subjective proof/evidence.She failed to put any objective evidence/proof on the table, thus failed to answer my question.

I'm sure your going to tell me I've got it all wrong now. I know my limits, I'm not arguing with you, you'll blow me out of the water. LOL.

2)Believe it or not I regularly go back over your post history to read what you've written, even on threads I've never posted in. In fact, your in my top 5 of posters I like reading.I admit some of your stuff is too heavy for me and goes way over my head, but I do try.

Anyway I am paying attention to what you say, so yes there is logical proof as well.

1) Yes, I can see where your original question was confused a bit, with some misunderstanding to follow. That being said, it is possible -- and I believe it is the case, though I will save the reasoning for now -- that an "objective" God imparts His essence into every individual, but that this essence can be expressed with variation. Accordingly (again, saving explanation), it is possible for Jesus to be the only savior of one person, for Allah to be the only savior of another, etc. Consequetly, one who says that Jesus is the only way may be very much correct, and as correct as another who says that Allah is the only way. There is a way to model this in a way that is consistent with the other ideas I have mentioned throughout this thread and others.

2). Thank you! That's really very humbling to read. I'm well aware of my aggressive, often-contrarian style of debate which can be intriguing to some and off-putting to others. I typically don't often respond to posts or ideas I fully agree with because I question how useful it really is to do so. I'm pleased to know you find value in my posts!